Talk:Just war theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Islam?

Is there a compelling reason to say that Just War Theory has its roots in Islam, while citing Cicero and St. Augustine as just war theorists? There's a chronology issue here... (Comment by 68.0.155.193 16:17, 24 November 2006)

That would be anachronistic, but I find no mention of Islam in the current article. That said, there is parallel thought to many aspects of Just War theory from Islamic thinkers. Nathanm mn 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam (generally speaking) does have a just war theory in the generic sense but this article is about a specific Christian tradition and doctrine, right? --Calan 06:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article's about the Christian Just War theory, but I think a short section on the analogous historical concept in Islamic thought would be a good addition to this article. Ideally, a separate article should be written, and linked from a short summary here. I've got a couple books on the subject, and many Just War books give an overview of the similarities. I'd be willing to start such an article, but I need to dig out some of my books. Nathanm mn 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea -- do an article about "just war theory" in Islam and then add a link to this passage (and visa versa). Do they have a name for the doctrine? I hear jihad justified, quite often, and it tends to be about self-defense.

I'm curious, what books on the subject? I'm a Christian pacifist who lived in the Middle East, so this topic interests me and directly affects me. --Calan 07:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of books nowadays, almost every recent just war book at least touches on Islam. I recently re-read part of Morality and Contemporary Warfare by James Turner Johnson to write a paper, but he only draws from one Islamic source, Shaybani, a Hanafi scholar. If you know anything about Islam, you probably know there are 4 main schools of Sunni thought, plus Shiite thought, so that book's scope is limited. The translator of Shaybani, Majid Khadduri, has a book called War And Peace in the Law of Islam and Johnson has another book called The Holy War Idea in Western and Islamic Traditions, but I haven't read either of them. I did read Islam and War: A Study in Comparative Ethics by John Kelsay, but it's been a couple years, so it's not fresh in my mind. It would be a good place to start—he does cover the different schools of thought (from a brief perusal of the TOC on Amazon). Johnson and Kelsay also edited a couple academic volumes: Cross, Crescent, and Sword: The Justification and Limitation of War in Western and Islamic Tradition and Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, but they're pretty expensive. Someday I'll have to find them in my university library. Also, more general books on Islam can be a good source, John Esposito's Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam is pretty good. Bernard Lewis has a book The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. I haven't read it yet but I'm sure it's good, I've read several of his other books.

Hope that's not too much to throw at you at once. BTW, where in the Middle East did/do you live? I did a short study abroad in Lebanon, was deployed to Kuwait for 6 months, and briefly visited Jordan. I love the region, and want do a lot more traveling (hopefully a whole semester) over there. Nathanm mn 21:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I live in peaceful Dubai but travel to some less peaceful places -- not Iraq though! Thanks for the books. I remember now, that I read Cross Crescent and Sword way back before I knew I would have any connection with Islam. I've also read a couple of Lewis' books. I've also read a book by an Muslim called "Islam and Peace" by Maulana Khan but I don't think it was published in the West.

There is a HUGE divide on this issue, obviously -- a divide so wide that when a Muslim says Islam is a peaceful religion that he gets scoffing in the West and when an American says that Christianity is peaceful, he gets scoffing in the east. --Calan 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I got curious and did find "Islam and Peace" on Amazon. They want $70 for a used edition! The sticker is still on mine and I paid Pak Rs220 (about four bucks)--Calan 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Go skiing lately? :) I definitely want to visit Dubai someday. Maybe once Burj Dubai is completed. Hopefully by then I'll be able to afford my own island. :) Nathanm mn 18:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Just War Theory" as moral relativism?

I think it would be interesting to have a paragraph in here that discusses "just war theory" as a form of moral relativism, or situational ethics... "just war theory" is often described as an ethos that leans in the direction of pacifism and nonviolence (or at least having a preference for a pacifist ethos), so it is important to distinguish it from, say, the more "hardliner" pacifism of MLK jr (the kind that even discourages violence in self-defense situations).

After all, the "moral relativism" page does reference (and contain a corresponding link to) this page on "just war theory" (see the page's mention of "unjust wars").

I don't see how Just War Theory (JWT) could possibly be construed as being a form of moral relativism. JWT has set rules that, although open to interpretation, are not relative in the way that morals are in moral relativism. JWT clearly says certain things are wrong and certain things are right regardless of who, individually or collectively, is making the judgment. --The Way 03:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to concieve that universality exempts a moral statement from relitavism. If I understand correctly; though the rules, or moral priinciples, described in Just War Theory are universal in language as you say, the fact of their being described in a particular social context makes them an imposition from that context, and therefore subjective. People can have different perspectives whether or not they are morally "right." -- Erik Herron 01:18, 13 November, 2006

Yes, application of rules may be a subjective matter but that does not, in and of itself, make the theory part of moral relativism. Several ethical theories can be subjectively applied, but this is more a result of the fact that it is humans that are doing the application which makes it almost inherently subjective; people are going to disagree on the precise way in which the rules apply to any given situation. Hume's ethical theory has subjective applications and its not a theory of moral relativism, even Kantian ethics can be applied subjectively. Relativism tends to view morality as either entirely culturally or situationally relative. While that does mean it is based on context, it is based entirely on context, JWT is not. JWT has pretty clear-cut rules that apply in all situations, there may be some disagreement on this but it seems to me that JWT may be somewhat dependent on context, but not entirely which keeps it from being a true relativistic theory. --The Way 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Relativism? That is possible, but the larger problem with this article is that it discusses the "just war" doctrine as if the opposing doctrine of "pacifism" did not exist. Indeed, many persons do consider "pacifism" to be an absolutist doctrine, and clearly some persons here believe the "just war" doctrine to be a relativistic doctrine. In any case, there is the larger "pacifism-just war" debate, and neither doctrine is truly intelligible unless one realizes that one side is responding to the other, very often as a kind of infighting among Christian ethicists, but not confined to that tradition. Surely some allusion should be made in the opening paragraph to the fact that the "just war" position is one side of an ongoing discussion called the "pacifism-just war" debate. Indeed, Augustine originally formulated this ancient doctrine in the Christian tradition in Civitas Dei, The City of God, as a reaction to the perhaps dominant pacifist tradition which had to have been in existence ever since persons first began to discuss the practical problems they perceived with trying to live the "Turn the other cheek" doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount, especially as found in the opening part of it in Matthew, chapter five, where the first ethical teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth can be found. This is not to say that war and peace were not discussed in other cultural contexts, which would be fatuous, but ever since the Roman Catholic Church adopted the "just war" position as its official stance (a stance which it still currently maintains, in spite of many dissident priests to the contrary notwithstanding), the "pacifism-just war" debate has been one of the enduring points of conflict in Christian ethics, and the "just war" doctrine is most notably defended by those in the Catholic tradition, even though the "just war" doctrine flowed into the Protestant tradition as well after the Protestant Reformation. That is to say that the "pacifism-just war" debate has persisted in both major branches of Christianity. The opening of the entry should in some way reflect that fact, I believe, and I repeat my primary objection to not alluding to the "pacifism-just war" debate at the outset: one cannot understand the "just war" doctrine without understanding that it is a response to "pacifism," and vice versa. Indeed, it might not be too strong to open the entry by saying that the "just war" doctrine was first formulated by Augustine (at least in the Christian tradition) in response to pacifist teachings in the original Christian teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, "pacifism" was and is the radical view, and the "just war" doctrine was and is a reaction to such a radical doctrine. That would be to make a perhaps controversial claim up front, but the "just war" doctrine is, after all, part of a controversy, not some doctrine that exists in some kind of vacuum of ideas. Landrumkelly 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with The Way. Respectfully, I'm pretty sure this is nonsense. You're confusing casuistry (cased based reasoning relying on set principles) with relativism (a fluid system of differential values). JWT is an example of the former, not the latter.Ossicle (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference to moral relativism really needs to be dropped from this article--there is no plausible way to construe JWT as relativistic. Part of the problem here is that there is widespread confusion about what moral relativism is. (The Wikipedia page on the topic is a disaster). This probably isn't a place for a big lecture on the topic, but we might look to Eric Herron's comment above to get some understanding of what may be going wrong in this article. Herron's idea seems to be that a view flirts with relativism if it the view can be described differently in different "social contexts." But this is false. The fact that x might be described differently by different people, or different groups, does not make relativism true, nor make X somehow relativistic. Cultural moral relativism--better called moral culturalism--is roughly the view that an action, a, is made right/wrong by being widely accepted or performed by some group (probably over a fair bit of time). The view has nothing to do with the possibility of describing things in different ways. Moral relativism can't simply be the innocuous view that people have different "perspectives"--even the most ardent non-relativist recognizes that.

There is simply no doubt that the reference to relativism is incorrect and should be dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.33.171 (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The argument about JWT being relativistic fails one of the most basic tests of a rational argument: reductio ad absurdum. If you accept that the application by a person of clearly stated rule, i.e. JWT, will by necessity be relativistic, then all real world applications of moral theory become relativistic. This becomes a tautology which then makes all further discussion moot, since it applies to every application of a moral theory by individuals or societies. This makes the discussion meaningless. The earlier reference in this discussion about casuistry versus relativism very succinctly states the terminology that actually applies. Delete all moral relativism references and links to JWT, unless they are a link that uses JWT as a contrasting, and completely different, doctrine from moral relativism. Shawnmmcc (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

other debates

Should this article also mention the Geneva Conventions? It seems that just war theory shares some aspects with the Geneva Convention (more of the "how", not the "why" aspects). Daniel Quinlan 01:47, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)

Agree. I am going to put the link in "See Also section" --Hurricane111 19:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where it says, "Some theologians believe that this rule forbids weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb)." Shouldn't there be citations to which theologians and include a link to each? Stating this without citation leaves the statement open ended and might be construed as a blanket-anti WMD argument without intellectual integrity.

I dont think the Geneva Conventions (GC) are connected that much to the Just War doctrine (JWd), since they give a set of behavioural rules during for when two forces are in war. Where the JWd applies to the grounds and cause for war prior to it, the Geneva Conventions only apply to moral behaviour by armed forces during a war. In this perspective the GC are more of a human rights subject. A unjust war does not become just only because its actors respect the GC. Secondly the GC have become relatively less important, being superseeded by many other treaties, declarations and resolutions.

True, while the GC do not generally discuss the principles of just causes for going to war (i.e. what Aquinas calls 'jus ad bellum'), they do apply to the principles of the just operation of a war (i.e. 'jus in bello'). Even if the decision to enter a conflict might satisfy the principles of 'jus ad bellum' for going to way, if it is engaged in in a fundamentally unjust manner (i.e. indiscriminate raping and pillaging of civilian populations, lack of proportionality to the original evil suffered, etc.), it would still constitute an unjust war. In fact, I think that mention of the GC should be included, because, as Aquinas says (one of the most influential proponents of Just War Theory, participants ought to recognize previous agreements made between them, to temper the violence of the conflict, and thus more easily maintain a period of peace between them after the end of the conflict.

"I dont think the Geneva Conventions (GC) are connected that much to the Just War doctrine (JWd)" This is just historically inaccurate. The GC, and humanitarian laws generally, are a direct and explicit outgrowth of just war theorizing: they're exactly what Grotius and Kant were writing about. I'll find some references for this soon.Ossicle (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Any Examples of Practical Application? A challenge to Wikipedians!

Are there any examples of a war that the leader wanted to fight, where the troops refused to fight because it violated the Just War theory? If not is this not a sign that the Just War theory is too vague to be useful? If people can choose their own definintion of "Just" then doesn't the whole thing lack credibility? This article would benefit from practical examples of the use of Just War theory, or if not, from the statement that there are none! (There are many examples of both sides agreeing not to use particular weapons, such as medievil banning of crossbows, the banning of Muskets in Japan, or poison gas since WWI, but I can't think of any of troops refusing to participate for moral reasons). Mike Young 30 Jul 2005

Well, as a bit of a knee-jerk, right off the top of my head reaction, you could make a case for draft dodgers opposing vietnam...though such an assertion is obviously rife with problems. The problem is that in this world, it's unlikely that a leader would be able to order the troops to do something that was so widely opposed that no troops would participate. if it were so obviously unjust that the troops would straight-up refuse to serve, i've a sneaking suspicion that the leader would not be leading much longer. and all that aside, with the discipline instilled in the military, it's difficult to imagine a large portion of troops simply ignoring orders. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 10:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The level of use does not have to rise to the level of refusing to fight. For instance it can be used as a framework to criticise or express opposition to a war outside of the warring countries, or even inside those countries where such speech is permitted. Those people who would oppose a particular war, yes claim moral grounds without being pacifists need something to hang their hat upon and just war theory has been the most notable attempt to justify war.--Silverback 12:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

In the Iraq War some soldiers refused to particpate because of the Just War theory, but I find it hard to believe that a war would be cancelled because of the soldiers refusing to particapte, it is the soldiers job to fight in wars and the discipline in militaries around the world would make it impossible for a war to be stopped because of any theories on war. Although I think that it is useful to have a guideline for the reasons behind a war even if they are not obeyed by all countries.

Also, not unrelated, I think perhaps more attention on this page should be paid to the ethical problems inherent in conscription. It gets a passing note, but is largely ignored. As to the specific question of whether JWT is too vague to be of use - I think it is clear that leaders do not apply the strict standards of JWT to their decisions to go to war. Rather, I see JWT as a way of framing the debate, a means by which to judge those decisions to go to war. And, ultimately, a means to judge the ethics of the leader. If the ultimate conclusion is that almost all leaders are unethical, so be it. I don't think that detracts from the credibility of the argument. What it does point to is evidence that political leaders see their existence in a different paradigm - that of the Realist. --RKelly74 20:24, 20 March 2006 (EST)

Additionally, the practicality of JWT isn't really at issue at all here. This is an encyclopedic entry. JWT, regardless of its practicality, is and has been a major ethical theory for centuries. It is an entire philosophic tradition in regards to the ethics of war and that alone means it deserves an article that outlines its principles. --The Way 04:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Um. Practical Application: The importance of JWT is almost exclusively rhetorical: it is the standard moral framework used in the Christian and post-Christian West to publicly justify using the machinery of the state to kill people in mass numbers, which is actually quite hard to get people to go along with in sufficient numbers (e.g. by taxation or conscription) without some reference to a shared authoritative moral principle - e.g. an appeal to a notion of justice grounded in Christianity. Consequently, JWT is also the main rhetoric employed to dissent in times of war, though pragmatism always runs a close second. JWT is probably better thought of as a framework within which arguments are made and by which they are judged rather than as an argument which is itself "credible" or not: it's essentially a form of casuistic reasoning. Nonetheless, it has a set (albeit sometimes conflicting) principles, a set authoritative reference (e.g. all those dead philosopher dudes, and, in last resort, the Bible...) and a large body of historical precedents (e.g. the discussion surrounding nearly every war since Constantine I). This is why the assertion that JWT is "relativistic" is nonsense: what are "relative" to one another in "relativism" are principles, which not the case in JWT. Also: The main modern innovation to JWT has been the development of a notion of humanitarianism which is seen to supersede national sovereignty - e.g. intervening in Kosovo was explicitly justified by an appeal to a moral imperative to prevent genocide. This is obviously a direct outcome of WWII, and specifically of the Holocaust. NATO bombing Serbian troops in Kosovo, then a part of Serbia, is a prime example here. The article should probably mention this somewhere, as it should the connections between humanitarian law (the various Geneva Conventions, treaties governing uses of weaponry, etc.) and JWT. And the codification of JWT in international human rights law - e.g. the charges at the Nuremberg trials of "making aggressive war" - and in international institutions like the UN. cheersOssicle (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

World War II

Should we make a reference to World War II? It's one of the few that nearly everyone agrees upon—even citizens of the defeated nations. It's widely referenced as being "the good war," etc. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:32, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Perhaps we should correct this mis-impression about WWII, which was fought by immoral means with all sides engaging in conscription and total war including the targeting of civilians with strategic bombing. We have to come forward in time to the rescue of Granada or these most recent Afghan and Iraq campaigns to get to candidates for just wars. Unfortunately the 1st gulf war and the campaign against Serbia were marred by the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure.--Silverback 08:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea that Wikipedia should take a stance against conscription is of course lacking a certain amount of NPOV-awareness. :-)) --Ruhrjung 16:18, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should no more take a stand against conscription than against murder and slavery. It is not wikipedia's fault if the arguments for these seem lame when compared with the arguments against.--Silverback 09:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and also...what about what people perceive? Most people perceive World War II to be more just than subsequent conflicts. I can see how you could make an argument for Grenada, since civilians were largely untouched, but the motives behind the involvement of some of the players in World War II definitely fall under the idea of "just war." —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:33, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Hmmm, what were Stalin's motives? What were Roosevelt's motives when interring the americans of Japanese dissent and authorizing strategic bombing, or delaying news about battles that were lost, or in granting parts of eastern europe to the Soviets or Truman's motives in bombing Nagasaki? All sides targeted civilian infrastructure. A lot of evil is done with "good" motives.--Silverback 09:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The invasion and occupation of Iraq you're qualifying as an example of a just war?? Let's go back and review those conditions again, shall we? Comparative Justice? Right Intention? Proportionality? Last Resort?

I find all of these questionable, at best. Right Intention is hard to determine, given the current administration's propensity for secrecy and dishonesty, but the others are even harder to justify.

Just my (not-N)POV.

Septegram 13:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Absent evidence of some other intention, we should go with the declared intention. Deposing a dictator who starts wars, massacre's people who's rights he is supposed to protect and who is bent upon acquiring WMD, seems pretty good for starters. The measures taken don't seem out of proportion to those necessary to allow the people who were once under the dictator to transition to democratic self-government. Despite Iraq's oil wealth, the US and UK have been net financial contributers to continuing Iraqi security and rebuilding. Last resort? After over a decade of trying sanctions, tolerating acts of war against the planes enforcing the no fly zone, and trying to get more effective action out of the UN, the Iraq war was more of a last resort than most. On the issue of comparative justice, the injustice suffered by the coalition is the failure of Saddam to live up to his international obligations, the injustice suffered by Iraq is much smaller by comparison, and that is the removal of an oppressive regime, in fact it is not an injustice at all. There was of course unintended collateral damage to civilians, but that is probably small compared to both the past and what the likely future of the Saddam regime would have been. Just War theory presumes that there can be just wars. Given that assumption, which I don't necessarily agree with, and the criteria proposed, you will have a hard time finding a more Just War than this Iraq war.--Silverback 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Proportionality

Proportionality has long been part of The Just War Doctrine. The Powell doctrine is not in conflict with that (tho an individual aplication of that doctrine might be). Dejvid 19:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retaliation

I don't see any authority for including "retaliation" in the list of Augustine's motivations for just war. On the contrary, he says, "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war." (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): http://www.newadvent.org/summa/304001.htm So I removed "retaliation". -- NuclearWinner 02:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Anyone else think that rather than bloating the individual headings of criteria of a Just War, we should have a section just entitled "Criticism" and move some material there? It seems to me that we are unnecessarily overloading the criteria. By moving material around the article could become more reader-friendly. Maclyn611 16:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are both of the external "Against" links to Christian anti-war arguments? There certainly is more to the anti-war movement than bases in Christianity. --Ben moss 03:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Just war theory is christian in origin, and not without controversy within that community. Of course many christians support unjust wars (by just ware standards), and others are pacifists opposing all wars. You imply this about an "anti-war movement", when really this site is about attempts to enumerate criteria by which some non-pacifist christians can support a war. If non-christian "anti-war" sites have also taken positions on, or conducted analyses, or proposed alternatives or additions to these standards, please feel free to offer links to those.--Silverback 02:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Where it says, "Some theologians believe that this rule forbids weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb)." Shouldn't there be citations to which theologians and include a link to each? Stating this without citation leaves the statement open ended and might be construed as a blanket-anti WMD argument without intellectual integrity.

Move to "The Just War"

Calling this page "Just War" invites the confusion that it is about just wars in general rather than the specific doctrine/tradition that goes under the name of "The Just War". Might adding the "the" help?Dejvid 16:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has there been any confusion with the current name? Just War Doctrine or Theory might be more to the point. "The Just War" might be thought to be about the invasion of Iraq.--Silverback 21:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to be sure whether there has been confusion but quite a few of the edits seem to not to quite understand that - like the above question about links. "The Just War Theory" might be better than just "The Just War" but I think the "the" is important as it makes it clear that we are talking about one specific theory. Dejvid 21:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are there any other theories or doctrines of just war that are known as such? I don't think there's much risk of confusion with the current title, Just War Theory (. . .doctrine would be fine too), and naming conventions are explicit on the matter of articles at the beginning of the title. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not that people would confuse it with with another specific theory but that they will start editing in the belief that this is a page about just wars in general. If someone says that war x coforms to what a just war should be we know very little but if he says that war x conforms to the just war than we know a great deal more. I am aware that there is a general rule in favor of droping the the but it is not a hard and fast rule eg The Age of Reason and The Great Game. Dejvid 19:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Are they going to do that even when the title of the page is "Just War Theory", which makes the proper scope about as explicit as it can be? Perhaps "theory" should be moved to the front, so Theory of just war? If people are going to start editing in information about specific just wars even when the title explicitly states that the article is about the theory, then I don't think a definite article is going to make any difference. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It is hardly ever described as "Theory of just war" so that would add to the confusion. Just War Tradition is possible but it reads really oddly without the the, even as a tittle. I don't agree that a definite article will make no difference. It is a small word but carries heaps of meaning and is more effective for being so conciseDejvid 20:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Dropping the "the" in English tends to change a noun from a countable to an uncountable noun. Hence "the just war tradition" is clearly about a specific theory but "just war tradition" implies traditions about what constitutes a just war. Osama Bin Landen definitely contends he is fighting a just war yet his struggle is as about far from the just war as you can get. My argument taken to its logical extreme would suggest an article called "American Civil War" might be expected to be about how civil wars have been fought in America and not the one that began in 1861. However, everyone knows about that civil war and the reader automatically supplies the missing "the" which by the rules of English grammar needs to be there. Hence I have no problem with the general rule. The problem is that many people coming here will be following links and may have never before heard about the tradition. Hence a strict interpretation of the Wiki naming convention to this case is extremely misleading. And is it such a problem? Unlike printed encyclopedias, Wiki is not in general alphabetically organized. Dejvid 10:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Just War Theory" is the appropriate title. It is also how it is taught in various security studies programs, such as SSP at Georgetown University. It is a "normative" theory that is intended to state the way things "ought" to be.

Propotionality jus as bellum?

Isnt proportionality traditionally jus in bello? How can one anticipate proportianlity? Batmanand 14:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the point is to make a sincere attempt at an estimate. Someone who merely hypocritically wants to claim to be following the just war can of course rig the estimate. It is first of all a morale doctrine not a legal framework. It is a guide to those making decisions (kings, presidents or voters) on how to do the right thing by their consience. And this isn't easyer in bello. Is the military threat from that town so serious that we are justified in bombarding it when we have no information as to whether the civilians have fled or not. Dejvid 23:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the attack on Pearl Harbor violated the principal of not attacking neutral targets is simply preposterous. Pearl Harbor was a U.S. Navel base, and a military target. The U.S. and Japan had been in a contentious relationship long before this military attack. You may criticize Japan for not declaring war before it attacked, but a U.S. Military base was not a "neutral target." I am sure we can find a better example of an attack on a neutral target. 72.35.97.142 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "Just War Theory"

"Just War Theory" or "Just War theory" or even "just war theory"? Shouldn't all occurrences of the same be consistent throughout, including the title. -- Krash 01:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I would favor "the just war theory" because it seemed to me that lower case thruout was the most common but there really is no consistent rule to follow so I'd be happy with any consistent rule. Which do you favor?Dejvid 21:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think it's a matter of preference. Rather, it's what is correct. My educated guess would be all lowercase. I offer fix the article to reflect this and move the article to Just war theory, but I want to get a feel for what others think of the situation. Especially since there seems to be a discussion on the appropriate title of the article as well. -- Krash 17:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There isn't a correct form as far as I can see. Did you see read thru the bit above about using "the" (which it used to have BTW). My preference is for "the just war theory". But whatever you go for I'll be happy with.Dejvid 18:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not a proper noun so surely should be "just war theory" and follow the normal rules of capitalisation ie, Just war theory as article title and at the beginning of sentences etc. Nurg 00:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the only reason people want to capitalize "Just War" is the desire to treat it as a proper noun, but it isn't. "New Year" is a holiday, so is a proper noun, but the "new year" isn't. If there was a single "Just War", it would warrant capitalization. "Just War Theory" will no doubt be capitalized in political science course work, but that's again a desire to set off Subjects from Regular Text, which isn't the way Wikipedia handles things. (Consider Lone gunman theory among many, many other examples.) Let's follow WP guidelines, please. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

i was the person who went through and capitalized all instances to "Just War". it was visually clearer, as instances where it was written "just war" are imprecise - "just" has more than one meaning, obviously. I just did a quick google, and while most sites do indeed present it as "Just War", i noticed one site that referred to it as "Just-war theory", which seems in some respects a fairly elegant means of properly entangling the meaning for clarity. i could be wrong though. :^) Anastrophe 03:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor Changes/Addition of Alternative Theory

I made a few minor grammatical changes and slightly rewrote the sentences in the beginning referring to Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Also added Absolutism to the alternative theories section. The Way 20:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Confusing Language

"Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression, self defense, massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations"

This suggests that self-defense is a grave public evil. What gives?

(response) It is my understanding that this is where the Principle of Utility comes in, that according to Christian Doctrine (at least in the beginnings of Just War Theory) it was still a sin to kill someone even if that someone was attacking you. With the Principle of Utility this would mean that the benefit of good would have to be higher than the effects of evil.--24.21.23.29 15:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hoo boy, someone is biased

Okay, what is up with the assumption that the theologians and philosophers of the Christian church merely came up with a just war theory merely out of self-interest, rather than needing to consider if and when there are cases in which the use of force is legitimate?

Even if we allow that influential philosophers and theologians represented the Church Hiearchy, this is an extremely childish and ad hominem attack. It would be a much more respectible article if it examined what the philophers and theologians arguments for and against the proper use of force rather than just assuming they did it to rubber-stamp approval for violence in order to keep the pews full.

• It should be noted - it is not a coincidence that the emergence of a theory of just war in the christian church came about with the rise of Constantine and, with him, the christian church's first taste of power. Indeed, up until this point christianity was very much marked by pacifism. Once they were in power, pacifism was no longer a viable theory.

It should be noted that the above garbage was written by a Know Nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.1.175 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does Just War Mean I'm Pacifist

Does being a supporter of the theory makes me a pacifist? Эйрон Кинни 03:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite, it is an attempt to excuse some wars as justified.--Silverback 12:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not always the opposite. I knew one pacifist who believed in the Just War Theory but tho he accepted that in theory a war could be just, in practice he saw every war that had ever been fought as violating one or more of the just war principles.Dejvid 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

source: blablablabla.com

I think that such a line doesn't really belong after the first sentence of an article (especially if that first sentence says nothing controversial). The fact that blablabla.com also inspires visitors to go and buy t-shirts makes it even more unsuited, imho. So I removed the line. -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 09:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Additions to the Just War Criterion (Jus Ad Bellum)

This article has failed to address Three overriding exceptions (as specified by Walzer, and quoted by Nye: "Understanding International Conflicts" 5th ed.)

---

1. Preemptive Intervention: If there is a clear and sufficient threat to a state's territorial integrity and political sovereignty, it must act right away or it will have no chance to act later. But the threat must be imminent.

Preemptive Intervention is not synonymous with Preventive Intervention.

Preventive wars occur when statesmen believe merely that war is better now than later.

2. When Intervention is needed to balance a prior intervention: Harkening back to the nineteenth century liberal view of John Stuart Mmill, people have the right to determine their own fate. If an intervention prevents local people from determining their own fate, a counterintervention nullifying the first intervention can be justified because it restores the local people's own right to decide. Mill's argument permits intervention only as far as it counterbalances a prior intervention; more than that is not justifiable.

3. Self-Determination: The right to assist secessionist movements when they have demonstrated their representative character. In other words, if a group of people within a country has clearly demonstrated that it wants to be a separate country, it is legitimate to assist its secession because doing so helps the group to pool its right and develop its autonomy as a nation.

NOTE: Part of Mill's argument was that to become a legitimate nation, a people must be able to seek its own salvation and fight for its own freedom--this is sufficient with the principle of nonintervention and a society of states, however is deficient as a moral principle because it suggests that might makes right.

Krusty sections

Exised text follows comment

I have removed these because they are inherently POV. The heading "Why was Just War seen as necessary?" says it all, but I will break it down for those present who dont quite understand NPOV. 1) "Why" implies a question, as if it was a common question. Its OK to have sections that answer questions, in science articles in reference to open questions (look here for example), or commonly asked questions. This is not one of those cases, and I would conjecture that articles on politics should never find such usage valid. 2) "Was" implies a past fact, in this case in reference to necessity, which is at least extremely overstated. "Seen" refers to a particular point of view (which does the seeing) without actually qualifying who's view. Its quite nice for you tell us the why, but its useless unless we know the who first, and the who already tells us that its a POV (in violation of NPOV). "Necessary" states that "Just War" was in fact "seen as necessary," and then does us the favor of skipping over the who, what, when, and where to explain just the why (five W's). By removing it to the talk and explaining my removal thus, I hope I have sufficiently exceeded any desired requirements for courtesy. Regards, Ste|vertigo 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

begin exised text

Why was Just War seen as necessary?

For thousands of years, war has been seen as an unpalatable, abhorrent but inevitable event. In Western history, one of the enduring questions has been: can the use of violence be ever morally justifiable to protect and preserve values? Are there situations or conditions where killing is a moral requirement? If killing can ever be justified, what, if any, moral restrictions should be placed? Just War theory, in essence, is an attempt at justifying war, or acts of war.

While Just War theory holds that killing is, in a general sense, morally unacceptable, it also recognizes that war is inevitable between states and will lead to deaths. Just War theory attempts to define conditions and situations in which the killing of others becomes a moral obligation. The main concerns of Just War theory are the protection of innocents (non-combatants), the creation of rules which can minimize deaths, and the waging of wars within defined rules. A Just War, therefore, is not merely defined by purely utilitarian criteria, but also by their means, principles and virtues.

Christian Just War Theory

Although there were significant philosophical efforts to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable political violence prior to the advent of Christian religion, the term "just war theory" is often closely associated with Christian philosophical tradition. Saint Augustine may have been the first to detail Christian Just War Theory. His description was essentially identical to the criteria listed above, and was influential in how the theory has been explained since his time.

Some Christians have also made the example of Deuteronomy 20:8 to be a fundamental precondition for a Just War. This verse allows anyone in the military to go home before any battle without punishment if they do not desire to fight the particular battle. This belief makes the use of a military draft to be automatic proof that the war for which it is used would be unjust. It is additionally contrary to the modern military system of enlistments defined in years or tours of duty because these do not allow soldiers to individually decide the rightness of each battle. However some have argued that the verse refers only to those that are "faint hearted", thus not including those known as conscientious objectors.

end exised text

Iraq War in the intro

Currently you would get the impression that the just war tradition was something dreamt up by the new-cons to justify the Iraq war. For starters it does not claim "claims the implicit "Legitimate Use of Force" doctrine associated with national sovereignty and self defence (from internal and external threats), can, for superpowers or "coalitions" with sufficient military influence, be "justly" applied to reflect, promote, or impose its state interests non-locally" indeed any who claims any such thing is arguing quite at odds with the tradition. It may be some advocates of US power might use the frameworks of the just war (if so please give refs) but it is not what the tradition is about. Can I ask what you think this page is about? - it is not about just wars in general but a particular way of trying to determine whether wars can be justified.Dejvid 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed now. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian tradition

As I understand it, until recently the 'Just War" theory was pretty exclusively a piece of Christian doctrine (at least in the West - there may have been equivalents in other religions). Yet the article seems to manage to avoid saying that. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That got cut to make way for the bit about Iraq. I think it would be more true to say that it is a traditon that many Christians have developed but it is not a christian doctrine as such. I read Cicero and it is fairly obvious to me that St Augustine merely developed ideas that Cicero had ( even if he did attack some of Cicero's ideas at the same time). The bit that got cut is in the bit above in "Krusty sections".Dejvid

Dejvid, your usage of the word "tradition" in this context is POV, and therefore not a suitable basis for a definition of what "it" is. If we stick to NPOV, then its easy to fit all of what "it" is in the lede --a political theory, wartime doctrine, a religious tradition, an innate concept of justice and rational self-defence-- whatever. Learn NPOV and we can discuss your notions of tradition and their proper place in this article. -Ste|vertigo 04:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not what this page is about. You might be right that the page is badly named. I have been thinking for some time that it would be a good idea to have two pages "Just War" about (allegedly) just wars in general and "The Just War Tradition" which is a very specific doctrine which has a history that can be traced and has the criteria listed. (BTW I may have misunderstood you. What do you mean/inteded by "lede".Dejvid 09:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dejvid, in good humor I have spit the article according to your notion of "tradition" as a distinct entity from "theory." I hope that you can now make use of this article to represent the concept of "tradition" in a suitably viable way, where "viable" in this context refers to articles that are well formed, not simply POV-based WP:FORKs of something with a POV spectrum that needs to be integrated. To begin with, the WP:LEDE needs a complete overhaul to remove any direct quotes from particular sites. The usage of such quotes violates both NPOV and our WP:SPAM clause. No external links belong in the lede either. Good luck, and I will check back in a couple days to see if any progress has been made. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 18:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to The Just War Tradition

IMO we are going to have continued confusion over what this article is about until we include "the" in the tittle. Anyone object to The Just War Tradition?

FYI, the "tittle" has been changed, per request. See note above. And sign your posts. -Ste|vertigo 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that's not quite the split I had in mind. What I had in mind was a split between the tradition (Agustine -> Aqinas -> Grotius ->today) and an article on the concept of just war in general encompassing all stances that envisage that war can sometimes be just. The article you seem to want is something about the current debate in America. I think you are quite mistaken when you talk about a resurrecting of the just war tradition. The just war tradition has not been polemically advocated for some time but the reason is because for some time most who have thought in terms of the just war have framed it so that it pretty much equates with current international law. The line has been that only defense can be just cause (in earlier times other causes have also be accepted by members of the tradition) and that defense is always a just cause (again in earlier times that was not assumed - to fight a defensive war when the only outcome was going to be defeat would seem to violate one of the key criteria of the tradition). In short you have not until recently seen articles defending the just war tradition because they have tended to do so implicitly by defending international law. I don't understand US politics but the article you seem to be wanting to write seems to need be much more focused on America. Perhaps Just War (US discourse) might be a more appropriate tittle. But no matter. All I care is that there will remain an article on the 2000 year old tradition. Dejvid 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage of "The" is not appropriate. If the concept you refer to is cultural, religous, or philosophical, these are better terms to use than "traditional." Tradition is simply a common aspect of culture, and does not define which culture, nor does it (as a "culture" context would) demand a description of which "tradition." -Ste|vertigo 07:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All along I have been convinced that there is not a POV dispute between us but a theme dispute. That was why I proposed a fork. I expected you discuss it. When you actually did fork I assumed that you on reflection had decided that we merely disagreed on what theme this page should have. Seems not – you still think we have a POV dispute so why did you fork? If you don't believe we have a POV dispute then a fork is a total waste of time.

• I meant of course:If you do believe we have a POV dispute then a fork is a total waste of time.

The way you define tradition is the usual meaning of the word but it is not the meaning that is intended when the phrase “the just war tradition” is used. Try a google search and read what you get if you doubt me. Tradition is used in the sense of intellectual current. The criteria have remained consistent but only in the abstract sense. Take “just cause” - all those using the just war tradition agree on that. But to say that you should not go to war without just cause says nothing unless you define what a just cause is. On that, the unity of the tradition collapses and a case in point is whether a preemptive war is just cause. People disagree. It is not part of the core but part of the fleshing out. The Just War is not a hard and fast ideology but a tradition which gives a frame work but allows people with quite different ethical values to think thru the implications of their values. Why did you make the move without checking why I was suggesting “tradition”?

Okay, maybe that was a misunderstanding but I was very clear that “the” was crucial. The tradition may have aspects that are very vague but the core is very specific and while it has developed over time it is remarkable how much you can find of the core if you go back to Cicero. This not “traditional thinking about just wars” but the very specific tradition. So why did you make the fork when you disagreed with the whole reasoning behind my proposal?

Finally you have been very ready to make to accuse this page of being POV. I'm sorry but I don't agree. You have described the just war as a justification for military aggression. That sounds pretty emotive to me. But no matter – maybe your characterization of some proponents in the US is correct. What I find strange is that while in the articles you are quite ready to use phrasing such as that your comments on the talk pages a neutral to the point of being incomprehensible. You assert that there is a NPOV violation without attempting to deal with the POVs involved.

Please try and be less laconic.Dejvid 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Please try and be less laconic." I can try. But first of all, lets clear some things up. One, I argued for one article which dealt with all aspects, with the stipulation being it not deviate from our elementary editing conventions. I only entertained the notion that this was distinct enough to be separate, and based on your suggestion moved it to the new title. Whether you made it in haste or simply offhand is not my problem. Nothing is a "total waste of time." This was simply to give you a sandbox to work in to clarify the concept.

Two, my criticism of the title is based on standard convention, to avoid using "the." (There might even be a link: Wikipedia:The or WP:THE). Unless its a part of a proper title, then we dont use it. It should be moved back to just Just War tradition. Three, I didnt offer much in the way of criticism because what criticism I did make you didnt accept or directly address and discuss. I moved the page, explained my reasoning, and left you to justify its existence as a separate concept. If you are suggesting it be reintegrated, then that would be wonderful. Again, the stipulation being that it not only contain lots of information, but be written in a clear way that actually approaches sensibility, and thus leaves the reader with an accurate impression of what the concept "Just War" means -- in the past and present, (maybe future too), with all the various points of view represented equally. -Ste|vertigo 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the fork – you did. If you didn't think it a good idea then you shouldn't have made the split. Full stop.

I haven't engaged with your criticism because there is total mismatch between the purely stylistic criticisms you make on the talk page ans the extremely hostile framing that you use in both the headers you have written. In short, it makes no sense to me. Yes there should be criticism of the just war in an article on the just war but such a slag off in the header? I've had a look around – that kind of treatment is really quite exceptional for wikipedia.

Anyway, it is at least possible that this dispute is a result of my wiki stress level exceeding 100% and that what seems to be your hard line is merely you reacting to me. I reckon its time for me to pull out. The fork, on the basis that you have executed it , clearly makes no sense and the two articles need to be re-fused. You have a free hand. Good luck.Dejvid 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Its really a good thing that you are attuned to your own stress level (the little things do add up) and that you were also able to thing back through the situation and apply WP:AGF where appropriate (give yourself some, too). I myself have to disengage every so often. Please drop in in a couple weeks, and we'll see what's developed. Regards, and have a nice m:Wikibreak. -Ste|vertigo 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why killing civilians is completely necessary...

Hi, I have made some changes to sections that were unnecessarily POV. I'm aware that my changes are not perfect, so further improvements (but not just reverts) would be welcome. 80.189.241.208 17:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Two articles

I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but there are two "Just War" articles: one at Just War and one at Just war. These should probably be merged or one of them deleted. --Chrismith 04:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The other article should be deleted. Any disambiguation needed can be added to this one. Armon 00:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request

Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Just war

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Just war, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Just war. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

There are 2 articles: Just war and Just War and both seem to be using this same talk page. As Just war is a stub, I've requested that it be deleted. Armon 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A logical split would be between the specific philosophical tradition which has a very definate view on what constitutes a just war and just wars in general. At the moment the two pages don't seem to represent that split so I would favor a merge. A merge doesn't need a formal vote. I would be against a deletion to the extent that would make it difficult to make a split in the future should it make sense.

Why not just do the merge? The proposal has been up long enough and no one has been against.Dejvid 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Besides, the two articles need to be merged before a move is addressed. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename Just War to Just war

• rename Just War to Just war ... capitalization issues. 132.205.93.148 00:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Agree to move Just War content to Just war. See [1] [2] [3] -the phrase is not usually capitalized. Armon 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Against A merge to Just War is all that is needed. The capitals are needed here to make it clear that a specific tradition is being talked about.Dejvid [4]20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Consensus Conclusion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jus in bello criteria

I don't know who made these edits (I quit searching the history after 200 edits), but in the several books on Just War theory I've read, these have never been mentioned as jus in bello criteria:

• Torture, of combatants or non-combatants, is forbidden.
• Prisoners of war must be treated respectfully.

Unless someone can find a reliable source, I will remove these from the criteria. Nathanm mn 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove factual accuracy tag?

That article section may not be perfect but is as factually accurate as most stuff here at Wikipedia -- especially for controversial topics. Why the tag? --Calan 06:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

A fine start, which could be further elaborated upon. I have two issues, though, with the approach. (1) Regardless of what formal "just war doctrine" states, as defined by particular writers, the vast majority of wars undertaken throughout history were considered just by the parties involved. Many of the "alternative" doctrines you propose, including "militarism" and the "Bush doctrine" do in fact fall within varying definitions or conceptions of just war. Very few leaders or states enter war without thinking that they are justified in doing so, and thus, representing these various doctrines as being opposed to "just war doctrine" is quite POV. (2) I don't think the mention of the current Iraq war is any more necessary than that of UK/US conceptions of justified war in Europe (1930s-1945), justifications for the war on terror or the Cold War, or justifications of any other war undertaken by any other power throughout history. The inclusion of this here is also a POV issue. Thanks. LordAmeth 19:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Globalize tag - Is this terminology used outside of Christian countries?

Which other religions/philosophies have doctrines on when war is just and what to they call them? Are they relevant here? Are they already present in other articles we can just link to from the lead or see also? MrZaius^talk 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the globalize tag. Let me try to explain my reasoning in doing so. Although Just War Theory has its roots in Christian theology, particularly Augustine, it's worth remembering that Augustine's roots are as much Platonic as biblical. And though Just War Theory largely developed as a Western and European philosophy, the underlying ethical arguments are not scripturally based. Certainly different cultures have varying beliefs about (note my capitalization) when war is just or about the ethics of war, but this article is about Just War Theory which is a specific philosophical doctrine. In other words, this is not just a misnamed article on the ethics of war and the contents of this article should not be interpreted as a definitive statement of what is just, but rather a definitive statement of what Just War Theory postulates. I hope this distinction is clear, as I would like to work on sourcing this article, but am afraid people will misunderstand the points above. --JayHenry 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul?

The article needs a cleanup so perhaps this is not a pressing issue, but Ron Paul mentioned the Just War theory in the last Republican US presidential debate... that's a pretty notable occurrence of someone mentioning it and he has since talked about it. Should that be specifically mentioned in the Iraq War section?--Gloriamarie 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the candidate in question make reference to the topic both directly and indirectly in various forums. It may be worth noting. 68.116.99.140 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

missing thoerist from list

the list of theorists is missing Chirstine de Pizan, who, in several works, contributed original and lasting legacies to the intellectual history of just war and peace theories.

Catholic Doctrine?

I would not dispute that the doctrine and concept has it's origins in Catholic theology, but I don't believe is soley the provence of the RCC any longer. Protestant and Anabaptist theologians have studied and expounded upon the topic for centuries. Perhaps this should be mentioned.

Also, I seem to recall Eastern Orthodox theology dismisses much of St. Augustine's contributions, and therefore may not have this particular doctrine. I'm not versed enough in Orthodox theology to comment, but if someone is, perhaps it would be of some note. 68.116.99.140 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

JWT has definitely exited a specifically religious context: it was used as theoretical underpinnings for the modern regime of international human rights and humanitarian laws, and when it was essentially institutionally written into the UN - e.g. article 14, i think, of the UN charter, which governs when war is seen as justified, etc. Just War Theory is a live tradition of philosophical thought comprised of many different theories that compete with one another in whole or part. In plain usage, (in the context, say, of the philosophy department of a large university) Just War Theory is understood to refer to the entirety of this field, not just to a singular tradition Christian in origin.Ossicle (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it is unfounded for the article to call Just War Theory a Catholic doctrine, even in origin. The article simultaneously lists Cicero, who died decades before the birth of the historical Jesus or that of Paul, as a Just War theorist. Philosophical and political debate about the justification for war preceded Catholicism by at least four centuries. The Romans always sought justifications for their wars (jus ad bellum) and behaviour within wars certainly was under discussion too (jus in bello). A striking example from ancient Greece is of course the Melian debate in Thucydides, where the city-state of Melos is about to be destroyed by Athens. Catholic philosophers certainly worked on the problem, and terms like "jus ad bellum" and "jus in bello" date to the Medieval period and not the Classical Age. On the other hand, philosophers have long before Christianity concerned themselves with the justification and ethics surrounding wars. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War?

I'm just curious as to why this section is present when there are a plethora of other better studied historical wars available to reference. Was there a political point to be made in including the Iraq War and no other wars, or is this non-cited portion of free-thought simply one person's contribution expecting other wars to be added over time? 216.143.221.194 (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that, in isolation, the sub-section is suspect. I think it should either be referenced and expanded to include how other recent wars (maybe Afghanistan, Bosnia and Vietnam?) were justified under the Just War doctrine, or removed entirely. TechBear (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the opposite: There should not be a section here, expect for a great war that has historical importance. I do not think the Iraq War has that importance over other wars. Iraq war is here only because it is near-current.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutism

This article lists absolutism as an alternative to just war theory. The first sentence of moral absolutism is "Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act." The use of the word context seems to be the basis of the idea that they are opposed. But, since absolutism is meta-ethical, it has no inherent definition as to which moral absolutes are endorsed and what facts are 'context' rather than defining conditions of the absolutes, while JWT is a normative ethical position, and contains moral absolutes as claims. Certain advocates of absolutism might oppose JWT, especially those who claim to have the only coherent absolutist theory, but these specific thinkers/schools of thought don't define absolutism as a whole, and it should be them specifically mentioned as alternatives to JWT, not absolutism generally. --Aeemnrsu (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Theology

While just war theory is not purely religious, being embraced in some secular philosophies, it is an important Christian theological concept. Given the debate between Christian pacifism and JWT, there should be a section about its theological significance and justification. --Aeemnrsu (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uniform and willingness to obey discrimination law

I have seen a critic against non-uniformed soldiers (actually against First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, because it is the protocol that put civilian in danger) and said it is putting civilians in danger, and thus should be outlawed. This is quite long time ago. Should the uniform and other civilian threatening activities be inserted under the section of "Jus in bello"? Those non-uniformed soldiers should bear almost all responsibility once civilians are harmed near them.　--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course that will include wearing civilians outfit, uniform of ICRC, sign of Press, or other third party army/organisation. These should be considered as against "Jus in bello".--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Aquinas and Summa Theologica

1. Summa Theologica 2-2 Q40 is important reference. It has important elements of Jus ad bellum
   • http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html
   • http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q40.html
2. I have go thru' "The city of God" and found very hard how Augustine had supported Just War. The quotation made by Aquinas (e.g. Contra Faust., or "Answer to Faustus, a Manichean", xxii, 75), on the other hand, did proved that Augustine had supported Just War.
3. When going thru' the references of Aquinas, can anyone explain to me that which reading is meant by "Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1"?

--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Apud just means "quoted in" and Caus. xxiii refers to Causa XXIII of the Decretum Gratiani. Not sure what Can. would be and I can't find an English translation of Causa XXIII (since all priests read Latin this stuff doesn't get translated?), although I can muddle through enough Latin to see that it's a section about ethics of war. --JayHenry (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Just War|p00545jx}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Rubbish

This is a poor article. The obvious counter-argument: that "just war" is merely the excuse everyone gives for waging war and the facts will always be bent to fit it - is nowhere mentioned William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be true but is that verifiable. I would also think that there should be a little more counter argument but I really have not come across any and I don't necessarily think that anyone is going to admit what you have mentioned.Blim1711 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Just war theory Mike Cline (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Just War → Just war theory –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. WP doesn't generally capitalise theories and laws, in particular. The title needs to accord with the bolded opening, which adds theory. Tony (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I can see the point of reducing caps. But I don't see the point of adding "theory" after it. Seems superfluous. Walrasiad (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- The proposal is the proper title format. Furthermore, I support "theory" as the topic covered by the article is the theory, not just the concept of just war.Greg Bard (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Examples Section

Under the Examples headline, the article states "As an example of the position US Catholic bishops took to the war against Germany, here is a quote from William Manning," and then gives a quote. This is deceptive, as William Manning was an Episcopal bishop, not a Catholic bishop. Furthermore, this entire section seems unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.224.88 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Emergency

Suggested additions to Formally described Just War section of Just War Theory [proposed subheading, "Supreme Emergency"]

Supreme Emergency

In his first radio address as Prime Minister of Great Britain, Winston Churchill proclaimed that "our task is not only to win the battle - but to win the war. After this battle in France abates its force, there will come the battle for our Island -- for all that Britain is, and all that Britain means. That will be the struggle. In that supreme emergency we shall not hesitate to take every step, even the most drastic, to call forth from our people the last ounce and the last inch of effort of which they are capable. The interests of property, the hours of labor, are nothing compared with the struggle of life and honor, for right and freedom, to which we have vowed ourselves." ." At the time of Churchill's address on May 19, 1940, the German Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were swiftly occupying territory in Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, and Denmark. The seriousness of Britain's predicament as stressed by Churchill was rooted in "the historical experience of Nazi rule . . . a threat to human values so radical that its imminence would surely constitute a supreme emergency . . . ." Nazism had fully emerged as "an ultimate threat to everything decent . . . an ideology and a practice of domination so murderous, so degrading even to those who might survive . . . ."

After the surrender of France to Germany in June 1940, the Battle of Britain began. Hitler failed in his efforts to subdue Great Britain by air and sea engagements and called off a proposed full-scale invasion (Operation Sea Lion). Instead he launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR. Following that, Churchill's friend Frederick Lindemann presented Churchill's Cabinet with a paper advocating the area bombing of German cities with the intent of serious civilian demoralization. Specifically, "working-class residential areas were [to be] the prime targets," with a hope to rendering "a third of the German population homeless by 1943."

The only viable force available in the summer of 1942 capable of carrying out the area bombing directive was the RAF Bomber Command, led by Commander-in-Chief Arthur Harris. Harris was a proponent of offensive, strategic bombing, eventually arguing "that only the destruction of [German] cities could bring the fighting to a quick conclusion." Britain had suffered the effects of the Blitz since 1940, but by 1942 Bomber Command was being readied to deliver a "severe, ruthless bombing of Germany [to] cripple her war-effort [and] create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population."

Churchill had declared the existence of a "supreme emergency" in May 1940; the summer of 1942 saw the 1,000 aircraft RAF bomber raid against Cologne. After the bombing of Hamburg in June/July 1943, Harris would claim that such raids "would end the war sooner that it would otherwise end and, despite that large number of civilian casualties they inflicted, at a lower cost in human life." The opinion of Harris reflects a basic paradox in the thinking of Churchill, his cabinet and advisers; "when a fundamental human value, like the rights of noncombatancy, is threatened, then action may be taken to preserve that value, even if in the short run protecting it may require disregarding it. This is the principle that justifies acts out of supreme emergency, and it is an extremely dangerous one. When invoked, it must be circumscribed by extreme restraint, or else its actions lead directly to what they were meant to correct."

14:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted the part about Grant Ethiticus. This is some kind of WP hoax, there is no such person, and the Mt. Holyoke page cited as justification does not mention anybody or anything related to this. SnoTraveller (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref to Hobbes

This statement "The importance of the theory of just war faded with the revival of classical republicanism beginning with works of Thomas Hobbes" is unreferenced. The article on classical republicanism does not address the issue. I suggest this sentence be removed or, if it is significant, someone who knows, give the relevant information with a suitable reference. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Just war theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061128152303/http://olympia.anglican.org:80/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_2.htm to http://olympia.anglican.org/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060710024929/http://olympia.anglican.org:80/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_3.htm to http://olympia.anglican.org/churches/B/stdunstan/Beliefs/Christians_War/Christians_War_3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)